Joint Statement on the GNU Project - <AUTHOR> https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ <comment><USER2> The only joy I get from these threads is in watching a whole bunch of newbies to GNU get upset that politics, social policy, and GNU are intertwined.

They have always been! You could at least have the dignity to read Stallman's writings (a fine start is available at: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and- articles.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html) , a more advanced diet is available at Stallman.org ) to understand just how politically charged GNU, the FSF, and Stallman have always been.

So now some members of a social movement disagree with the leader of that social movement you feel upset to see social issues discussed? That seems dishonest.

Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original star of the old guard as the world moves forward.

How ought the community respond to a trend to controversy and irrelevance other than by asking Stallman to step aside from the figurehead role? Is the argument here really that once you are a figurehead for a social movement you earn that position for life? I can't think of any successful movement or organisation for which that has been the case.

GNU has always been political, the politics needed to bring software freedom to all users is different now than it was in the 90's. Some battles have been won, others have been lost hard, new battles have arisen. An honest discussion of whether Stallman is best placed to lead those new battles is overdue.

<comment><USER3> There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known personality that they'd be able to lead it.

After being embraced, extended and diluted by corporations, software freedom will slide even more into irrelevance.

This also doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's a statement towards Stallman to GTFO.

<comment><USER2> That may well be true. Certainly, and reserving judgement on exactly what this means, nobody who could lead it quite like Stallman.

But, I find the implication hard to accept.

It would be to say that Stallman's continuing presence is essential to the success of free software; surely a frightening responsibility for any one mortal person to carry through their remaining years!

Free software has had success as a movement. To believe otherwise is to take away more than just Stallman's position, but his entire contribution to our modern society!

That means there are others who will, and for a fact do already, take care for the well-being of the GNU projects. Not all of these will believe in everything Stallman has said or represents, and things would certainly change without him.

A large and successful movement lives beyond its founder, and grows to challenge the new status quo. If it fails to grow, new movements fill the vacuum.

<comment><USER3> I'm not worried about GNU projects or any project, I am worried about the idea of free software, which has and has had many supporters but only one champion.

I don't think it will survive. Rich corporations like Google or Microsoft will continue to fund open source projects when it suits them, while locking out users through the cloud and hardware. Those other supporters will play along, because the corporations are paying their salaries or donating to their projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets.

People are claiming here that they can have just as much an impact on open source as Stallman, but if this is the case, why haven't they already pushed Stallman out on their merits alone? Why has it taken airing Richard Stallman's dirty laundry for them to step up in the community's eyes?

Perhaps their sins are less objectionable than Stallman's - more acceptable when combined with their lesser impact than Stallman - but what about tomorrow? Who will replace them when their actions from 20 years ago come back to haunt them?

What level me mediocrity will we have to endure in 10 years just to have the least objectionable person possible in a position of power?

<comment><USER5> the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.

<comment><USER4> Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and do, contribute to GNU projects.

Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable. However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

<comment><USER6> Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation.

I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one of the people Stallman made a joke about maybe wanting to fuck. (And, if I hadn't thought it might be worth sticking around for the Q&A and a chance at a callout. Some goober ended up yanking the mike cord, which was fine. A lot of people thanked me for saying what I did before he got to me.)

How likely do you think it is that those women had any inclination to contribute to free software after an experience like that? How likely do you think it is that _I_ did - knowing that to do so would associate me with people who had no problem with a figurehead whose behavior was so completely out of step with modern mores, and so discouraging to such a wide segment of the community?

Since then, I've corresponded with others more familiar than I with RMS, and from that correspondence I've learned that this kind of thing was in no way out of character for him - I don't know firsthand, because that was the last RMS talk I chose to attend or will attend in future, and decided no longer to donate my time, money, or support to any FSF project for as long as he remained chairman. I don't want to be associated with behavior like that, and I most certainly don't want to enable it - both for its own sake, and because where the culture tolerates something like that, there's reason to suspect it will tolerate worse, besides.

I'm glad that so many people who have such a strong hand in making FSF and the GNU Project what it is today - far more of a hand than RMS has had in many years now - have chosen to speak so well on the subject. I know their statement has elicited a torrent of garbage. I hope they won't let it distract them from the fact that they're doing the right thing.

<comment><USER7> > "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he > could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with"

There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw)

I think your words mean the _opposite_ of what RMS actually said. So much for justice.

Your words:

"so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with."

RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone & conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so he has to improvise to fill the time):

"And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible to increase the light on the audience please?"

That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should have had a word with him about how it was received.

My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself, were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent.

Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out for on this occasion looks to me like a _brazen outright lie on your part_ , as evidenced by the video to correct the record.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I actually _posted_ the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really missing out on a great opportunity to call me names.

You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.

<comment><USER8> You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke, nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look.

However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt").

Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply indebted to you for this important lesson.

<comment><USER6> As I said to another interlocutor here, you're welcome to your opinion. How finely you need to split the hair to preserve it is no concern of mine.

As I also previously mentioned, the video does not show the people who immediately got up and left in response to that remark. It seems I'm not alone, either, in being more concerned about their opinions than about yours. Judging by the content of the statement here under discussion, many of those who have in recent years, by volume of code and effort invested, been the _actual_ leaders of the GNU project, incline to a reading of the situation which rather more resembles mine than yours.

I doubt you will find it easy, with intellectually honest arguments, to convince anyone that these people are engaged in a "witchhunt" which, if it were so, would critically endanger the reputation of the project in which they've invested so much.

But, again, that's your problem, not mine.

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't find it too surprising that all of those 20 people left at the mere mention of words "might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you", since the joke was in poor taste.

That doesn't necessarily support your interpretation.

<comment><USER6> Even had I not seen the effect in action, here and elsewhere, I'd still be willing to take people at their word when they say, as they have and do and will go on doing, that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it, because it evinces a lack of essential respect on the part of those leaders for members of the groups whom those "jokes" target.

If you think they are lying about that, or can't be trusted for some other reason, here's your opportunity to explain your reasoning on that.

<comment><USER9> > that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to > participate in projects whose leaders engage in it

I don't doubt that. And you're right to point that out.

You'd be even more right if you didn't exaggerate the words he said while paraphrasing because your version changes the story from "poor taste in jokes alienating women" to basically accusations of sexual harrassment.

And a lot of us don't like to see exaggerated accusations toward anybody, but especially given the recent scandal where RMS suffered a lot of misrepresentation and emotional overreactions all over the Internet.

Now, the change in leadership (or, to start with, decentralization) might ultimately be a good thing for the GNU project, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat the reputation of the outgoing FSF president with at least some respect.

So let's be correct and factual, this will really help discussions like this be more constructive from all sides.

<comment><USER6> I'm being as respectful as I can be. For example, I haven't yet raised the point that, the conference having taken place in NYC, an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly _would_ be considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law ([1], cf. also "Some Examples of Sexual Harassment" in [2], provided as an example of sexual harassment information required to be posted as described in [1] and [3]. Note also the hero image in [3], which, while perhaps not a legal document in its own right, is extremely on point for this discussion.)

Now, of course, a conference speaker does not typically employ his audience, and I don't argue that RMS is eligible for the civil penalties which, per that statute, may attach to the comment he made. I would nonetheless, in light of this information, find myself somewhat embarrassed to have chosen "it's just a joke, not sexual harassment" as the hill on which I wished to die.

I have a great deal of respect for RMS's legacy. For example, had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am; I have found Emacs an invaluable tool for something like a decade, and have no intention of ever replacing it at any time in the future. I own a signed copy of the Emacs 24 manual - bought at that same conference, and signed by RMS himself just a few hours after those events took place. I have no plans to destroy it, as I gather some have done. I was honored, and remain so, that he was willing to sign my book at all.

But the respect I cherish for the technical work RMS has done, does not extend to excusing his failures of respectful behavior, or the fashion in which they hinder rather than advance the goals of the GNU Project and the FSF as a whole. Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now.

I understand the grievances of those who would hear no ill of their idol. I hope they'll someday learn to understand that facts don't care about their feelings.

[1] [http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/...](http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/title8civilrights/chapter1commissiononhumanrights?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_T08)

[2] [https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/Sex...](https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/SexHarass_Factsheet.pdf)

[3] [https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment- campa...](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment- campaign.page)

<comment><USER9> > an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be > considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human > Rights Law

Sorry, I couldn't find the definition for "sexual harrassment" in the first document. And I'm not from US, so maybe we have different expectations for the term.

Could you clarify which of the 6 examples in the second document you found pertinent to the story?

> had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would > almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career > where I am

Cheers to you from one of the current Emacs developers, then!

> Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said > or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now.

Maybe you should have. Hopefully not in the way that the current Twitter mob has organized, though.

The way the scandal broke out, there's little opportunity now for the stories like this to have an ultimate positive impact, unfortunately. I doubt Richard is going to get a lot of speaking engagements in the near future.

<comment><USER6> NYCHRL isn't straightforward in its language, for sure; it's written for lawyers. It's also the legislation that applies in the jurisdiction in which the comment was made. In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual, I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on gender", the sixth bullet in that second document.

Maybe you think that's an unworthy bit of lawyerly ratiocination, but even so, consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from any tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that talk's audience, and for the same reason around which the GNU maintainers' statement revolves.

To your last point, I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive impact out of all this, or I wouldn't have said anything even now. I'm not here to try to dogpile the guy; I'm here to talk about how, no matter from whom they originate, comments like this _aren 't_ "just jokes", that they _aren 't_ harmless, and that there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in defending them or the people who, as in this case, persist in making them past all reasonable expectation or effort of curtailment.

I feel like that's worth talking about, if for no other reason than because the man's been regarded as a hero by many, some of whom may really need to be told that there are some aspects of his behavior which are not acceptable, and which they cannot expect to get away with.

I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand _why_ this is the case, and agree that it should be. But I'll settle for someone like that getting the idea that, whatever he may think of this whole idea, he'd better learn to keep his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt marginalized groups, or else expect to be made sorry.

Maybe that sounds harsh to you, I don't know. It sounds harsh to me. Being made fun of for being a woman, or gay, or a person of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or... - that's a hell of a lot harsher, and it normalizes and, as is amply exemplified in history both recent and otherwise, encourages behavior that's far harsher still - discrimination, exclusion, robberies, beatings, rapes, murders. That sort of behavior, I'm absolutely fine with being harsh in an effort to dissuade.

Nobody gets to _choose_ to be - or not to be - a woman, or gay, or of color, or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or part of any of the other axes of marginalization in our societies. Everyone, though, has the power to _choose_ what they say. I want people to choose wisely. If their native empathy doesn't suffice them as cause to do so, I have no problem in principle or in practice with the fear of punishment taking its place.

That, after all, is the tool societies ultimately use to discourage behaviors they regard as unacceptable. What our societies find acceptable is changing. I understand that some people really don't care for that. But, again, facts don't care about their feelings. And when we have the US Supreme Court considering whether to explicitly exclude LGBTQ people from civil rights protections, and Germany's AfD frightening Jewish people into hiding their ethnicity - when those aren't even the _worst_ examples you can find, just the first two that came off the top of my head - it's getting awfully late in the day to take a softly-softly approach.

<comment><USER9> > In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual, > I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on > gender", the sixth bullet in that second document.

Aren't sexist remarks statements like "a woman couldn't manage to do xxx as well as a man could", or "make me a sandwich"? The statement was (one might say, carefully) gender-neutral, and even if you can infer a gender it might have been referring to, what negative thing would it have been implying about said gender?

> consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from > any tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that > talk's audience

It could have, but I hope nobody would call it "sexual harrassment". "Inappropriate language at the workplace", maybe? It might not (since there's no single person it targeted, to report it to HR). It probably wouldn't cause any firing at any of the places I've worked, though. _shrug_

> I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive impact out of all > this

Let's hope so. And let's hope your comments don't end up drowning in people arguing about details, like a lot of us nerds like to do.

> there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in defending them or the people who, > as in this case, persist in making them past all reasonable expectation or > effort of curtailment

I hope you can see that, given the unfortunate circumstances, there really _is_ something honorable in defending the person, at least to make sure that the accusations are valid and not overblown.

> I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand why this is the case, > and agree that it should be

BTW, you know you could email him directly, right? Before that all happened, or even now.

> he'd better learn to keep his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt > marginalized groups

Again this language of emotional escalation. It's manipulative.

Making someone uncomfortable doesn't always imply hurting them. Even if they're feeling entirely disgusted by a speech, like some of the women in the audience might have been.

You don't have to equate X with Hitler to prove to people that X is bad. X can be bad on its own rights.

> If their native empathy doesn't suffice them as cause to do so, I have no > problem in principle or in practice with the fear of punishment taking its > place

There is still such a thing as disproportionate punishment.

<comment><USER6> Of course you know I haven't equated anyone with Hitler. Nor need I. It's quite enough that the comment under discussion moved people to walk out, to leave, to turn their backs on the talk and the speaker and the subject he was there, in the end, to promote.

That's harm, but it's not the only harm. It's not all that easy for someone to start a career in this industry, if they don't already "look like us" \- the concept is typically treated under the name "culture fit": white, male, straight or at least nonthreateningly upper-middle-class gay, went to college for a degree in CS or a nearby discipline or else started programming at minus three years of age, laughs at our jokes and tells ones like them, drinks the same kind of beer we do, stuff like that. People who don't check those boxes, who don't exude the same ant smell, have a harder time. A higher standard is imposed. One way to meet it is to demonstrate both technical skill and ability to work with others via contributions to well-known projects - such as, for example, those that constitute the GNU project.

So it doesn't just hurt the project, when people are discouraged from trying to make such contributions by leaders making comments that, yeah, to people who look like us it's easy to mistake for just a joke, what's the big deal. It's easy for us not to see the problem, because people who look like us aren't accustomed to being the butt of jokes. For people who are, of course it's not "just a joke". It's the latest in a lifetime of "jokes" which, with enough experience of the sort that people who look like us are not likely to have, you learn are warning signs of a defect in the culture where such "jokes" are accepted. You learn that such a culture will not be kind to you, in the way it is to people who look like us. You learn you won't be welcome, that it'll be a constant fight to even _try_ to establish and maintain yourself there. You learn there are better ways to spend your time, that piling that extra bullshit on top of the concerns that come with just trying to live a life in the world of the future is something best approached with great care and vast effort at self-defense, or maybe not at all.

So the project loses contributions, and you lose a chance to prove yourself to the higher standard imposed on you than on people who look like us, and our industry and our field of endeavor lose people who had the potential to be great engineers and, being not superhuman, needed encouragement and support to realize that potential - encouragement and support that people who look like us failed to provide, all while asking why's there all this fuss, anyway, over what was just a dumb joke, honestly, who even cares.

You're welcome to go on not seeing this as a problem, if you like. I don't know what more I can do to convince you. If you won't believe the stories women tell about experiences like this and the effect they have, if you won't listen when someone who looks like us corroborates those stories and says, yes, this happened, things like this happen every day, and they really do run people out of projects, out of jobs, out of careers, that if you take even a moment and look around just a little, you'll see it too - past that, I don't see what more I can do to convince you that this matters.

It's enough to make me understand why those who bear the brunt of this problem are getting past the point of trying to convince anyone of anything. It's enough to make me want to get behind them and push. If that means adding my voice to those demanding RMS, having so misused his platform for so long, now have that platform taken from him, then so be it. His work will stand forever as a legacy of what one person can do, and inspire others to do. That should be enough for anyone. And if the manner of his departure from that role inspires even one young engineer who looks like us to think twice about making some "dumb joke" that'll force whatever women or PoC or queers like me who hear it to consider whether they _really_ want to spend their whole working life around people who act this way and worse toward them - well, there's a kind of legacy worth respecting in that, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This statement makes clear to me that I can no longer trust (parts of) the GNU project to prioritize software freedom and making good software over catering to hateful lynchmobs and virtue signalling.

There's no meaningful way for me to act on this current, since "boycotting" GNU does nothing to harm these bad elements and I do not contribute back to GNU. I can merely convey my profound disapproval.

This is a disgrace. This is no way to treat someone. It's nothing short of utterly disrespectful and self-serving. RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man; even in the most negative sensible reading of the situation, he is guilty of a minor transgression at most. Even in the most negative sensible reading of supposed transgressions spread over decades, he does not deserve this.

RMS has done more to empower _all_ computer users than all of these signees combined. I'm very saddened by this torrent of hate, short-sightedness and obedience to the mob. To me, GNU represents fighting for freedom even if nobody else believes in it; this is the opposite of that.

<comment><USER11> > RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man

Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe _both_ that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct _and_ that he has engaged in behavior that harms the cause of Free Software.

[0]: > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman's behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users.

<comment><USER12> I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS; Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are people who want RMS out for their own personal agenda (which they may even believe is the "common good" agenda... but, that's presumptuous on their part).

<comment><USER13> What makes you think this _wasn 't_ sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?

<comment><USER12> What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just leave.

What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my pov, what they did has only downsides, and no upsides whatsoever.

You don't like GNU? Fork their software, make your own GNU with vodka and hookers. Just, don't throw a public tantrum. Use official channels and due process. If the organization doesn't respond, and doesn't match your values - just leave.

<comment><USER14> I think your post summarizes my view of the whole situation.

Stallman created that movement and has a lot of community support. Outing him to the public without discussing in private or even giving something actionable is just inviting outrage.

If you disagree with an organization, quitting and/or forking (and announcing your reasons) is less damaging to the cause than this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oh my god.

" _all_ computer users" with the implication that Stallman is not representing the ones who demand to go straight to lynch mob behavior without a shadow if due process as soon as the word "sexual" is mentioned? And therefore Stallman should be thrown out of the project that is his creation and life's work?

That's got to be one of the most forced political readings ever of that point in the manifesto. Well, if that's the argument, I'm a computer user too and every one of these signatories have just demonstrated themselves unfit to represent me. Enough of the witch hunt, and hands off Richard Stallman's thoroughly earned standing in the GNU project!

<comment><USER16> Due process is for the court.

If you ousted yourself as an asshole in public, people not wanting to associate with you isn't legal, it's civilized society.

<comment><USER4> We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it _not_ the right thing to do in all venues?

<comment><USER17> If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family, do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for dinner again?

<comment><USER4> Perhaps I pull you aside, call you out for your actions, and give you the chance to change your ways.

One strike and your out isn't even how we play baseball.

<comment><USER17> ... from the sounds of it, I assume the pull-aside convo happened and failed.

Maybe I'm too trusting. I have no evidence that kind of a convo happened. But the allegations are that RMS has been a missing stair for well over 20 years. I find it very hard to believe that someone who's been causing problems in a community for 20+ years has never had a friend pull them aside and ask them to change their behaviour.

<comment><USER4> If we're changing the analogy to specifically look at Stallman again, we need to make a few changes. Specifically, a quick note that now you're visiting his house for dinner. This changes things a bit. He may have the best open source dinner spread out there, but it's ultimately your choice to keep participating.

<comment><USER18> It's absolutely maddening to see such vociferous "defense" of Stallman in ways we know he could not stand. If you think he would tolerate an "open source dinner spread", you don't appreciate what he's actually done and have just glommed onto the bizarre 4chan personality cult surrounding him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.

<comment><USER20> There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.

<comment><USER21> you are reframing (weakening) the OP's standard.

the standard is not "care", it's "gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does".

RMS used an absolute garbage computer because it was, in his words:

> the only laptop one could buy that could run a free initialization program > and a free operating system.

i'm certainly not taking it on some contributor's word that these 20 or so odd people are as principled as RMS that i trust the project to be led by them. my guess is a large fraction are pragmatists (like most normal people) who use a nonfree BIOS setup for productivity, or have an iPhone/android because "normal", etc.

so, while certainly more like normal people, they aren't as principled. and what you want in a position like RMS's is someone so principled that they basically are immune to attack and inspire others to take on those principles. nobody's taking RMS seriously if he's giving talks from his macbook air.

as far as i can tell, RMS is so principled that it actually hindered the long term success of GCC. it would have behooved the long term strategic goals to make GCC the best/"only" compiler by making a BSD/MIT style version, so as to accept more liberal contributions, but he didn't.

he seems to be principled to a fault. is this group of 20 or so people as consistent as he was? i sincerely doubt it.

<comment><USER22> I completely agree with you. Moreover, I witnessed the same scenario in other projects, and it always ended the same way: once the charismatic leader was eliminated, people gradually lost motivation and everything dwindled. When people realized it was not worth it, it was already too late. Now that we lost Stallman it will be extremely hard to find a person even remotely as principled as he was.

<comment><USER19> One of Eric Raymond's innovations was to establish clear principles for the OSI at its outset, and then retire from the board out of a desire _not_ to become one such "Jesus nut" for the movement.

The entryists have a response for this too: call for the removal and replacement of _all_ the leadership of relevant organizations, as they have already done with the FSF.

<comment><USER9> That's the thing: "open source" is not a movement. And ESR wouldn't be a particularly charismatic leader (he's more of a controversial one).

Open Source would never be where it is now without the Free Software movement (which _is_ an ideological one). Maybe some corporations would still promote the OSS approach due to its economic benefits, but probably not. It likely wouldn't have the same midshare among developers that it has today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I personally think that Richard Stallman is both not getting fair treatment and to some extent brought this on himself.

For me, the GNU project becomes much less interesting without his blog articles, public talks, etc.

I had let my FSF membership lapse, was thinking of renewing, and now probably won't.

Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed in one place as signers of this letter. I don't agree with them but it is good to see their names and projects listed.

<comment><USER24> > the leaders of the various GNU projects

The leaders of _selected_ GNU projects who were likely to share the same opinion and sign. Others were not even informed of this initiative that kind of poses as speaking in their name.

<comment><USER23> Thanks, I didn't know that other contributors were not consulted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For anyone coming to this, I can't speak for all of the people on that list, but the ones that I've met personally, over a decade now in the free software world, are decent caring people _actually following the creed of freedom to its rightful conclusion_. The idea that this is a "witchhunt" is absurd.

<comment><USER25> I cant speak for any of the people on that list either. But if they are committed to the core values of free software and empowerment for all, then its plausible to me that, rather than words in a joint statement, they should fork the FSF. That is the course of action on which the FSF was founded and would be proof positive of their commitment to the core values they profess. They can then proceed to build a better project, with stronger core values, including universal empowerment. There is no one that has to be judged; there are no joint statements that need to be written. That is the wonderful thing about freedom. One can build, perhaps has the obligation to build, the better world that should exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would suggest GNU people to not rush into decisions, the things are too heated at this moment, I am afraid we get a fracture of the project.

I am also having a bad feeling that Linus Torwalds is next, that a list of 20 years old emails is already prepared and some people are ready to tweat something that maybe happened long in the past that made them uncomfortable. Maybe that public apology Linus did this year was a defensive move.

<comment><USER27> There are probably a number of people who are attracted to Linus Torvald's attitude and style, but I can assure you the number of people who do not contribute to the Linux kernel because they're turned off by it is significantly larger. It's absolutely in the best interest of the project that he adopt an attitude change permanently or step down.

Just as most sports are 90% mental and only 10% physical, managing a large software project is 90% people skills, and only 10% technical.

<comment><USER28> And yet somehow, Linux is arguably the most successful open source project in the world.

<comment><USER29> Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing participants.

Popularity is only one gauge of success. There are other metrics, such as personal satisfaction, missing features, or other things that the project may have failed or scored less well on.

<comment><USER30> But you don't know which contributors you'll lose if you change the project. I remember when FreeBSD added in their controversial new code of conduct, and some existing maintainers left. People keep acting like getting rid of a divisive leader will either result in improvements, or the status quo, but it could also cause the project to get worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > We, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, … [18 signatures]

Does anyone happen to of know what fraction of GNU maintainers those 18 names represent? Does this represent a majority of GNU maintainers or a small fraction?

<comment><USER31> Here's [1] the list of contributors to GNU. Note that it also includes past contributors.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/people/](https://www.gnu.org/people/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure if that list is comprehensive. Neither Ludovic Courtes or John Wiegley are on it (and they are both signatories of the open letter).

<comment><USER32> Maybe it tells us something about the "joint" part? So mob-sad..

<comment><USER18> Wiegley has probably done more to make Emacs exciting again than anyone since the XEmacs fork.

(Which, hey, speaking of RMS driving off contributors...)

<comment><USER32> Sure, but taking part of a political games, doesn't make him a favor.

<comment><USER33> What exactly is your position? Is John Wiegly an important contributor to the GNU project or not?

<comment><AUTHOR> He is, in my opinion, considering he's the primary maintainer of what has been called GNU's flagship application, emacs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Genuine question, what exactly do these maintainers want ? Stallman has already quit his leadership role/position, right ?! Is there something more that he or the GNU project needs to do ?

<comment><USER20> He quit the FSF and MIT. GNU is not the same thing as the FSF, despite their close ties. He has ascertained he still maintains a leadership role in GNU, and he has quite a contingency of devoted followers who think this is all a witch hunt against him.

<comment><USER19> It's not just Stallman. This is an attempted systematic ouster of old-school hackers (and new-school hackers with old-school values) from positions of leadership. Stallman is just the latest target and also one of the softest. They have also called for the removal of:

* Linus Torvalds ( _after_ he apologized and approved the adoption of their code of conduct)

* Ted Ts'o

* the _entire_ FSF board

The problem is that while the old-school hackers were mainly left-liberal or libertarian, more and more open source developers these days come from the San Francisco web dev community and were immersed in the ideals and principles of the social-justice left, for whom "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is an unstated truism. More struggle sessions and purges are likely to follow, if this contingent is allowed to gain ground, and I fear for a GNU project led by, instead of Stallman or someone who espouses Stallman's liberal ideals, a commissar who strictly polices the use of gender pronouns and scrutinizes every code commit and mailing list post for hidden signs of bourgeois consciousness.

These people do not even support free _speech_. What makes you think they will give a milligram of respect to free _software_?

<comment><USER27> You've whipped up quite a strawman to get angry at, do you have any proof of this conspiracy?

<comment><USER35> Well he is empirically right about the code of conducts, the public attacks on free software figures, and the denial of free speech. I would call it typical radical leftist behavior instead of a conspiracy, but everything else checks out.

You, for instance, mentioned above that it would be impossible for a minor to engage in consensual sexual behavior without even considering for a moment that there are more liberal (and I'd say more civilized) societies that define "consensual" and especially "minor" quite differently. It is exactly this absolutist enforcement of a particular pov that alienates many observers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> My company has released several applications under GNU GPLv3 and AGPLv3 licenses, and is preparing to release more. We wouldn't have done this without rms.

This 'collective of GNU maintainers'is lying about rms actions undermining the core values of GNU projects. 'Collective' is alienating us from participating in GNU projects and I suggest to remove them from further discussions about the organization of the project.

</comment><comment><USER37> I always feared this day, I also fear the day Linus steps down / passes away. I don't know who can fill their shoes without them getting too lenient or too carried away.

</comment><comment><USER38> This conversation went down the rabbit hole. I read the statement, and interpreted it to mean the GNU project should also be a safe place for women programmers. I'm a bit sad the comment that's risen to the top has taken us in a different direction.

The fact that this statement remains vague hasn't helped anyone to interpret it with precision.

</comment><comment><USER39> How mechanically centralized is leadership in the GNU project? Does rms sign off on every change?

I'm wondering how expensive it would be (assuming he does not want to step down) for the community to fork away from him or route around him.

<comment><USER20> In practice, GNU is almost nothing. Years ago there was more cohesion, and there are some guidelines that GNU maintainers nominally follow, but in practice each GNU package mostly does its own thing. A lot of decisions are made in a don't-tell-mom kind of way, i.e. we just try to make sure that rms doesn't notice when we do something he doesn't like, such as calling it win32/win64 instead of w32/w64 like he prefers.

One of the things I hope will happen with this statement is that we will regain cohesion and we will be able to stand together again like we once did. There's lots of good people in GNU, and I think we need someone like GNU. Principled, uncompromising, and now hopefully friendlier and more helpful than we have been.

<comment><USER40> "Uncompromising" and "friendly" are not terms that one typically finds together.

<comment><USER20> We can be friendly without having to compromise freedom. We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level.

My view is that GNU should be working towards making sure we can get our software into as many people as possible by giving it an attractive interface, simple installation instructions, and a welcoming community, while at the same time refusing to collaborate with any who wish to proliferate non-free software.

<comment><USER41> > We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to > take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants > to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level.

"We should be friendly, unless we don't like the people using our software"

<comment><USER39> > > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

In the specific case of free software, the paradox of tolerance plays out concretely, in that failure to enforce copyleft on software can lead to the creation of software derived from that work that is itself copyrighted in such a way that the deriver could sue an original source creator deriving work from their derivations.

I don't think anyone would consider copyleft enforcement "friendly," but the alternative is "free software has no ability to protect its core tenants," so some friendliness must be abridged.

<comment><USER41> I agree that enforcing copyleft licenses is extremely necessary. My thought here was that "those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others" is a bit too broad to apply to _just_ that, especially when considering things like the recent Chef outage.

In other words - some people are going to use GNU software to take freedom from others (imagine a prison running Linux, etc) in ways that conform with the license. I do not think GNU should oppose this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I see claims of users not being 'empowered' and not being able to 'trust' GNU software.. because of Stallman?

Sorry, but what does the controversy surrounding Stallmman have to do with user empowerment and trust? Has Stallman been preventing people from using GNU software? Does the trustworthiness of this free, open source software diminish because of Stallman's opinion on some social/political issues that are completely unrelated to software?

<comment><USER39> They aren't completely unrelated to software. One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. From said page ([https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free- sw.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html))

""" "Free software" means software that respects users' freedom and community. """

The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Consider, as comparative example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal," and that it was penned by a slaveowner and did not lead to a government that freed those slaves for over 80 years (regardless of what the words on paper said).

<comment><USER42> > One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in > question has a "philosophy" page.

Anything can have a philosophy. Just because someone is a communist or a feudalist shouldn't prevent them from contributing or being part of a free software project.

> The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by > 'community.'

Has RMS done anything to prevent people from using GNU software? Has he attempted to move GNU in a direction that would violate its stated goals or philosophy? Has he made the software any less free or any less respectful of users' freedom and community?

<comment><USER39> Based upon past travel hosts' interactions with him, having him visit to speak on the topic can involve you needing to burn the sheets he slept on.

Yes, that has material impact on the organization; it decreases people's willingness to hear its leader speak on the topic of what the organization stands for.

<comment><USER42> A lot of things affect people's interest in a project. RMS being the original creator of GNU is definitely a big plus towards interest in hearing him speak. I don't see anyone who would be a better fit. Furthermore leading GNU is not just about giving talks with maximum popularity - and if popularity is such an important point then GNU is the wrong project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> So these people speak for all humankind? Wow. I wonder how that works. Is there a certification process? Truly this is a brave group of 20 white men.

</comment><comment><USER44> Wow, so what does this imply? Is this a coup d'état or just a _request_ for Stallman to cede part of his leadership to more people?

<comment><USER45> GNU has clearly outlived its usefulness putting social justice before free software.

<comment><USER39> These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they're complimentary if you turn your head and squint a bit; the Four Freedoms are targeted at minimizing the creation of a classist world where some people control software and others merely run it. Avoidance of a classist world is a "social justice" concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> What a nice piece of backstabbing. Class.

<comment><USER47> I suppose you could interpret it that way. It reads to me more like a statement of values, going forward.

<comment><USER26> There is nothing factual on how RMS actually did damage to GNU and how exactly this guys will by magic fix that damage.

Seems mostly a PR move and it will probably fracture GNU

<comment><USER7> If my feelings are an indicator that mirrors others, I agree that it will likely fracture GNU. Especially if the new leadership cannot recreate the same sense of ideology, purpose, and deeper change that RMS stirred up with his writings.

The GNU Manifesto (written by Richard Stallman) was one of the biggest change- my-life documents for me. Probably it was just a matter of timing and luck that it happened to be that document, but it was. It exposed me to new ideas that I could relate to, and really made me think in a new way, a way that is generous and creative towards other people, and that has stayed with me for decades since. It went beyond mere software; my relationships, and the way I treat people, were affected for the better as well.

And so I've long been very sympathatic to the FSF/GNU projects and cause.

I would have been proud to contribute and operate a project under the GNU banner, and nearly did on several occasions.

Since recent announcements, I'm starting to feel different about the FSF/GNU projects. My feelings about the GNU Manifesto and RMS's activist writings have not changed much - there are good and profound ideas in there.

But I no longer envisage myself wanting to contribute under the FSF/GNU umbrella, since the last few weeks. I expect there are quite a few people who will feel the same "change" of enthusiasm.

The joint statement is very short and doesn't say much. But it says enough, in that second paragraph about RMS, to make me feel wary of wanting to work with any of the people whose names are listed below it.

> The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend > their freedom.

The undersigned have shown, with crystal clarity, that they _cannot_ be trusted to defend everyone's freedom, since they blatantly have chosen to not even try to do so in this case.

And so we need a new movement, to replace GNU.

Ideally, one that everyone can _actually_ trust to defend their freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> As a reminder, a bunch of ludicrous accusations on Stallman[0] is what this is about.

[0] [https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/](https://sterling- archermedes.github.io/)

</comment><comment><USER49> I see this as an essentially "internet" reaction. It is cowardly in the extreme. I doubt any of these people would say to Stallmans face the things their letter implies. Furthermore twitter etc act as an amplifier for whatever words you throw in it, and as the news networks and talk show hosts figured out years ago, outrage sells. There's also white-knighting, probably a consequence of social awkwardness and discomfort, because nerds grow up but they may not grow out of it.

Sad and cowardly, hardly surprising.

</comment><comment><USER50> fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.

<comment><USER51> That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.

<comment><USER50> I don't show respect to people that throw their leader under the bus at the first sign of trouble. They have achieved some cool technical stuff but that is no excuse for being a sad sack of a human.

<comment><USER17> You're literally doing what you describe. Throwing away a bunch of people at the first sign of an action you disagree with.

<comment><USER50> These people are not in any way the leaders of a group I belong to. I'm not part of GNU. So I'm not doing the same thing at all.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, I should have said "writing off" not "throwing away"

<comment><USER50> Me writing off a bunch of people that are mostly unrelated to me and a group of people expel their leader are vastly different things. There is(should be) an inherit trust from the leader to the group and the group to the leader. It's fine for the group to expel. What is not fine in my opinion is for the group to do this under external pressure.

This clearly show the group has no allegiance to the group itself. Only to winds of external pressures. It basically proved GNU is not really serious group. Just window dressing.

<comment><USER17> Apparently some other non serious groups include: governments, most major corporations.

<comment><USER50> That's exactly right. Governments enforce their power through force and major corporations through money. Not groups that deserve any respect or their stance be taking seriously.

<comment><USER17> This is a huge aside, but the most disturbing part of your response is the bit about governments. Governments are _supposed_ to be responsible to the people. Responding to external pressure is literally their job. They should be respected when they are responsive to the people. They only need to "enforce their power through force" when they are not responsive to the people.

<comment><USER50> Yes governments job is to respond to the people. I'm not sure what your point is. That inherently makes the government a group that can't be trusted. It's too fickle to be trusted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> what a slimy bunch of shrieking rats

good riddance!

</comment><comment><USER53> Many people here talk about "cancel culture" which is in fact a fake culture that is completely artificially generated via paid actors, like some on this list of signatures. Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization. You can look it up by yourself.

Stallman is a very eccentric person which makes him the perfect target for a devide and conquer operation in order to take ownership of the (hobbyist) FOSS movement.

Also ycombinator seems to have an agenda in this too, offing every post about Stallman from the frontpage. Never trust anything you get for free (like this site) except it came from Stallman, I guess.

<comment><USER54> > Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against > Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other > FAANG type of organization

Maybe those corporations do a better job at providing an inclusive environment than the free software community? And those people are interested in bringing the same to the FS world. (Whether or not it was necessary to push Stallman out for that, I'm not sure.)

<comment><USER53> The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN.

If you want to kill the FUN you introduce COCs, you guilt trip people of a certain gender and race (white male) for simply existing and you create artificial drama via divide and conquer like the current Stallman campagn. Congratulations, mission accomplished, the fun has been eradicated.

Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake. The FOSS community should generally exclude everybody who is not fun. Inclusiveness has proven itself to be counterproductive.

<comment><USER55> > The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN.

No, it was never exclusively about that, and it's become less dominantly about that over time.

> Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake.

The nature of "free" and "open source" is you don't get to choose who to invite.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla Ventilator - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZbDg24dfN0 <comment><USER2> Yes, this is an impressive amount of work done in a few weeks by a small team at Tesla. However, medical devices, especially for _life support_ systems, are not a Hackathon project.

These devices breathe air into patients lungs. They need to be manufactured in clean room conditions, with medical grade parts, not plumbing parts from a big box store. They must be designed and tested to ISO specifications. If this fails, the patient can die.

I can't imagine any hospital or doctor careless enough to connect one of these to a patient, even in this current emergency.

The smarter idea is to ramp up existing proven designs, not reinvent the wheel and basically do a publicity stunt about your engineering talent.

<comment><USER3> > If this fails, the patient can die.

In the current situation, I doubt anybody will give any regard to your sentiment. Though, I myself will.

> The smarter idea is to ramp up existing proven designs, not reinvent the > wheel and basically do a publicity stunt about your engineering talent.

This is what China did. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, and knockoff ventilators began to fly off assembly lines in less than a month.

P.S. In other news, A VERY BIG THING that no news seem to be reporting. China has effectively _banned nearly every medical export_ as of April 1 through enforcement of impossible to comply paperwork:

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3077953/coro...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3077953/coronavirus- china-bans-export-test-kits-medical-supplies-firms)

A man I know, who works at a medical clothing, and bedding factory, says that even such basic things that should not require any certification are now banned for export.

<comment><USER4> > In the current situation, I doubt anybody will give any regard to your > sentiment. Though, I myself will.

I think the thought process for a lot of people will go more along the lines of "If you were given the choice of not having a ventilator (because they ran out) and dying, or using an unproven Tesla ventilator and maybe surviving, what would you do?".

That's assuming that Tesla (or other companies working on this) actually ends up manufacturing and supplying these things, and this is not just a publicity stunt.

<comment><USER5> I'm given to understand that Chinese traditional medicine is effective as well, and with their reported success in controlling the epidemic, we should look into those techniques as well.

How much can we count you in for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For more background info on what is needed for a ventilator and why it isn't that simple: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22779665](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22779665)

<comment><USER7> The Tesla prototype seems much closer to a medical ventilator than most of the overly simplified models shown in that video. Working Medtronic is likely a large advantage here.

Adjusting air temperature and humidity seems like the biggest missing piece.

<comment><USER8> The schematic on the whiteboard had a humidifier component, fwiw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is not Tesla, but Seat has already done it : [https://www.seat.com/company/news/company/from-making- cars-t...](https://www.seat.com/company/news/company/from-making-cars-to- ventilators.html)

Less techie, more down to earth, they used wipe motors.

<comment><USER10> That's great. I hope wiper motors can take that kind of continuous actuation -- it's not really what they're designed for. I'm sure they'll stress test the hell out of it.

<comment><USER11> Driving for hours in heavy rain results in pretty continuous actuation of wiper motors. I'm far from a mechanic but I can't say I've ever heard of a wiper motor failing either. I'm sure they have real data on it instead of this handwaving, but as an outsider I would be surprised if it was an issue.

<comment><USER12> Not a comment on the ventilator made from a wiper motor, but I have had one fail, and had to have it replaced for something like $255.

All mechanical parts will fail (the antikythera device isn't still operational, but that's a pretty long-lived device!), it's just a matter of when and why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tesla didn't do this from scratch as people here seem to assume.

Tesla partnered with Medtronic [https://www.medtronic.com/us- en/index.html](https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/index.html) It seems that they also work as parts supplier for Medtronic.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are ventilators even helping? I see numbers like a 30% survival rate in some places, but they don't mention if that means "aren't dead yet" or recovered and removed from the ventilator. I definitely read about people who have successfully been removed and are recovering, but that's all anecdotal.

<comment><USER15> The information we need is:

1\. Percentage of patients who needed ventilation, got ventilation in good time, and recovered vs died.

2\. Percentage of patients who needed ventilation, didn't get ventilation due to lack of resources, recovered vs died.

Then we'll know how much ventilators are helping.

I understand that prior to this pandemic, typical survival rates for patients who required invasive ventilation was in the region of 30%. 70% die even with ventilation.

I've also heard that of Covid-19 patients that require ventilation, 80% die even with ventilation. So it has a slightly lower survival rate than other illnesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'll be interested to see how well they can scale this up. Production functions are always dependent on the most scare component. Hopefully Tesla can leverage their already existing supplier base to easily source everything needed for this design.

<comment><USER17> I'm interested in this too. In the video, they said they're attempting to make this using as many car parts as possible, to prevent themselves from taking supply away from other ventilator manufacturers. That's a noble goal, as well as it helps them leverage their existing supply chain.

<comment><USER18> I'm curious what the mixing chamber is used for in an electric vehicle. Is it part of the climate control system?

<comment><USER19> It said "Continental" as the manufacturer on it. If I had to guess, I would say it was the reservoir for their adjustable height air suspension.

<comment><USER18> Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. It looks quite beefy for climate control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is pretty excellent. It is one of the first ventilator solutions that actually implements appropriate air sensors, a PEEP function and air flow monitoring. Hats off to the tesla engineers for throwing this together so quickly. It's pretty neat that so many car parts could be reused. I can imagine they are finalizing the software interface and optimizing the machining process to reduce the cut time on the custom manifold production. Again, awesome job guys!

</comment><comment><USER21> Are there certification requirements for newly designed ventilators? If so, how long would that take?

<comment><USER22> This might be one of those scenerios similar to what's currently happening with PPE - where we just have to use uncertified equipment because we have nothing that is certified left.

Like many others have pointed out, if the option is this uncertified machine or certain death - which would you choose?

Actual proper testing and certification would likely take years - and we need them within the next few weeks.

<comment><USER23> Who pays the liability when the ventilator backs up and blows the patient's lung apart?

<comment><USER22> If you're the patient, and the doctor says "I'm sorry but we have no more ventilators. You can elect to choose this experimental device and sign away liability as a last resort. Otherwise you are going to almost certainly die."

How would you respond? If anything I'd be appalled if I was the patient, and was basically just left to die because of all the certification red tape.

<comment><USER21> >If anything I'd be appalled if I was the patient, and was basically just left to die because of all the certification red tape.

AFAIK that's what already happens now with highly experimental drugs. You can't just give terminal patients whatever you want with the excuse "they were going to die anyways".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The main criticism I see here is that without prolonged testing it's very possible for a piece of equipment like this to do harm to a person.

On the other side I see people saying that for those that can't get a ventilator and are going to die anyway, why not use it.

I'm curious if that category of patients exists though. With Covid are doctors able to make that call at any point? I've heard lot of Hail Mary treatments criticized because unlike in the movies there are many ailments where there's not really a clear point where someone's not coming back.

Anyone know if it's a common scenario with this where a doctor knows someone is def going to die but there is still time left to do meaningful treatment?

</comment><comment><USER25> The FDA would take years to approve a new ventilator that was an old one with a new paint color. A new design like this would probably be approved for use in US hospitals around 2025 if they're lucky.

Might be useful sooner in a country with a more functional administrative state.

<comment><USER26> There are many reasons for long testing on medical supplies. While there might be some laxing of them for a "hail mary pass" in the situation we are currently in, we shouldn't claim that equipment shouldn't have validation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not sure what to think of this.

Any people working with real medical ventilators care to comment on this?

<comment><USER28> Free PR nothing else (and nothing wrong with that). Those engineers didn't call up the marketing/pr dept and ask for a professional video crew to show up - "cause we just want to share an update with the world".

<comment><USER29> It's more than that. Tesla engineers themselves probably are itching to help. Check out GE's workers getting mad that the company wasn't helping to make ventilators. People join companies like Tesla and SpaceX because they want to be challenged, have a bias for action (of course, everything still needs to be qualified), and make the world a better place. In a global pandemic that can be helped by addressing a shortage of manufactured stuff, engineers aren't going to want to just sit on their hands if there's a chance their efforts could be helpful.

It's not just corporate PR. It's not just Elon Musk. It's also these workers wanting to help the world.

<comment><USER28> That's pretty much what Trump and his team say too. It's all PR to me, until they are standing next to their product, in use, saving lives.

<comment><USER30> That would be an unwise decision. Doctors can be replaced with other doctors, but if an engineer working on the ventilator gets sick, and possibly infects the whole team, they are hard to replace, as other engineers don't have the experience and expertise that they got in the last couple of weeks (and maybe years).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22789605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22789605)

</comment><comment><USER32> This is good, and I'm glad they're doing it.

They've clearly got involvement with existing ventilator manufacturers.

Are they talking to doctors in ITUs? Here's a recent Facebook thread from people involved in London's new hospital: [https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=103930280957826&st...](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=103930280957826&story_fbid=217689892915197)

It shows that ventilation of covid-19 patients is not like ventilation of other patients.

I'll paste part of it here because I know some can't visit Facebook.

It's by Daniel Martin OBE, Macintosh Professor of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Lead for High Consequence Infectious Diseases.

\---everything below this point is a direct quote from Daniel Martin---

Ventilation

\- Early high PEEP is probably not the right strategy and may be harmful. This is not ARDS in the early phase of the illness.

\- Avoid spontaneous ventilation early in ICU admission as also may be harmful.

\- There is clear microvascular thrombosis happening in the pulmonary circulation, which leads to an increased dead space.

\- Also some evidence of early pulmonary fibrosis reported from Italy, possibly oxygen related, possibly inflammation related.

\- Not many patients have reached extubation yet in London, re-intubation seems to be common. I highlighted our experiences of airway swelling / stridor / reintubation.

\- Brompton are seeing wedge infarcts in the lungs on imaging, along with pulmonary thrombosis without DVT.

\- Proning is essential and should be done early. Don't just do it once. Threshold for many centres is a PF ratio of 13, but all agreed, do it even earlier.

\- Early on in the disease, the benefit of proning lasts < 4 hours when turned back to supine, as the disease progresses into a more ARDS type picture, the effect is more long lasting.

\- Many centres using inhaled nitric oxide and prostacyclin with good effect. Tachyphylaxis with NO after 4-5 days.

\- Generally people are using humidified circuits with HMEs.

\- A very interesting thing they are doing at Georges is cohorting by phase of disease i.e. early, late, extubation / trachy. It involves more moving of patients but helps each team to focus on things more easily.

\- Leak test before extubation is crucial, others are also seeing airway swelling.

\- Wait longer than usual before extubating, high reintubation rates reported. Do not extubatne if inflam markers still high.

My conclusions from this are:

\- Less aggressive PEEP strategy at the beginning of the disease and go straight for proning.

\- Thromboembolic disease is prevalent, look for it. No one is sure about whether we should anti-coagulate everyone, this is probably too risky.

\- An extubation protocol is needed immediately.

\- We should consider using inhaled prostacyclin again (like we previously did) as it seems to be working early in the disease.

</comment><comment><USER33> Extremely curious the outcome... I hope they can get some folks in the medical field to provide quickly some feedback.

<comment><USER34> Tesla is working with Medtronic (per Medtronic's CEO on CNBC Mar 25th) to rapidly iterate on their designs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is this like the kid-size submarine or does it have a chance of being mass- produced?

<comment><USER36> Definitely a PR stunt like the "submarine". See this comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22794211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22794211)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I just took possession of a Model 3 about 2 weeks ago. Feel like I underpaid for it when seeing how some of the residuals are being used now.

</comment><comment><USER38> I just love the environment in the video! It looks like they're all in college experimenting! Loving the rowdy shirts and leather jackets!

</comment><comment><USER39> This looks promising. They're being smart to use their own supply chain as much as possible, but obviously things will get interesting when it comes to getting clearance to deploy the device. Even if the design can't be used in it's entirety, they may be able to fill part of the supply chain for other manufacturers.

One complaint - everyone keeps touching their damned masks. Keep your booger picker away from your face.

<comment><USER40> It's because their masks keep dropping when speaking. It's surprisingly hard to fit the mask in a way that you do not feel the urge to adjust it every now and then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Hopefully they get these right instead of ordering C-PAP machines [1]

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2020/04/04/health-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2020/04/04/health- officials-say-ventilators-donated-by-tesla-are-wrong-type-and-not-powerful- enough/#1554fae56264)

<comment><USER42> I see this everywhere. I also saw where they literally listed what machines they needed, and Tesla brought the exact machines they wanted, including B-PAP and C-PAP machines.

<comment><USER41> [1] [https://www.inputmag.com/tech/where-are-elon-musks- promised-...](https://www.inputmag.com/tech/where-are-elon-musks-promised- ventilators)</comment></comment></comment>


Testing your domain name - <AUTHOR> http://customerdevlabs.com/2013/03/05/test-company-domain-name-with-mturk-survey-data/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. Suggestions for B2B companies?

<comment><AUTHOR> same ideas apply, just point a different audience to the survey. See <http://bit.ly/16W7fhF> for more details.</comment></comment>


Whole Foods cuts workers' hours after Amazon introduces minimum wage - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/06/whole-foods-amazon-cuts-minimum-wage-workers-hours-changes <comment><USER2> So what, was Whole Foods giving employees more hours than what was required to have the store functioning properly, simply because labor was cheap? That doesn't add up, to me. Also, this is discounting the value of the employee's time. Like, if they get the same paycheck, but are working fewer hours for it, that's of no benefit to them.

<comment><USER3> > more hours than what was required to have the store functioning properly

Most likely, yes. Beyond the minimum amount of work needed to keep the store functioning there are other tasks which offer some benefit, but not enough to justify the increased wages they would be paying employees to perform those tasks. Which is unfortunate for those employees who preferred longer hours and more total revenue over a higher hourly rate...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So I actually worked at Whole Foods for a bit.

It helps when you realize there's actually three classes of workers at Whole Foods. There's Part Time (Not supposed to be over twenty hours), Part Time 20(at least twenty hours), and Full Time (think north of 35 hours a week).

The latter two get health insurance, the first does not. The part time 20 worker has to pay a lot more for health insurance but it's a really good plan.

I suspect what they're doing here is bumping more people from part time 20 down to part time to reduce benefits.

Honestly this doesn't really surprise me. While I worked there they were hostile to giving people consistent hours. I suspect many jobs are like that though. Made it very hard to have a second part time job while you worked there.

There was also radical swings in my hours week to week. Some weeks I worked 12 hours, one week I worked 32 (I was a part time worker).

<comment><AUTHOR> I worked for Whole Foods for a while too, and can vouch that even prior to the Amazon acquisition this is how they rolled.

I was hired during a hiring freeze when they weren't hiring new outside FT people. My team leader needed me full time, so we learned that, internally at least, the constraints on PT/FT status weren't the weekly hours worked but the average weekly hours during a fiscal period. This led to a situation where I worked a couple 25-30 hour weeks, then went down to 8-16 other weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's the same old story every time minimum wage is raised. Will they never learn?

<comment><USER6> Exactly - when minimum wages are introduced, they need to be met with rigorous protections against reductions in working hours.

<comment><USER7> Why not just have the government pay the person directly? Complicating things only introduces avenues for corruption and errors.

<comment><USER8> The US government already subsidizes underpaying employers in the form of food stamps and other palliative services.

If employers were required to pay for the foodstamps and welfare services of their own workers, I wonder if we would see a change in their behavior? It would suddenly make less economical sense to reduce costs by pushing their most vulnerable workers below the poverty line, since that would just push up their welfare costs. Today they don't pay a dime - so hey, if the government is subsidizing you to screw your workforce, and public opinion is brainwashed to blame the workers instead of you, why would you _not_ do it?

<comment><USER7> I see all of that as a consequence of unnecessary complications. If society's goal is to provide people with a quality of life floor, then do that for everyone equally. Then you don't have to calculate the costs of which employer is using how much welfare (which are impossible calculations anyway subject to political pressure).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why so few computer science majors? - <AUTHOR> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2011/03/why_so_few_computer_science_ma.html

<comment><USER2> The author has a good point in "Many high schools don't know how to teach CS", but that seems a truism based on what we read in "The Camel Has Two Humps" (<http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf>).

The author totally misses the point with respect to the value that society (and potential employers) place on computer science. It's like any other form of engineering - you probably can't have a career in it, due to hire-and-fire project staffing, and the offshoring of every possible job that can be sent to some place without minimum wage, and a health care system.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's funny that you submit this now -- I just saw an HN story that CS enrollment is up 10% this year[1] and a front page HN article about how Stanford has so many new CS students that it's overwhelmed[2].

1: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443062>

2: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2442274></comment>


TestFlight - iOS beta testing on the fly - <AUTHOR> http://testflightapp.com/ <comment><USER2> I am very interested in this, but the body copy is _way_ too verbose and unclear.

Headline should be to the point: "Coming soon: no more ad hoc builds" (I've been fighting with them a LOT this week and would pay good money to never have to do one again)

This text is far too long: "Both developers and testers are aware of the headache known as ad hoc distribution. Packaging a build and profile, emailing testers, dragging everything into iTunes and sync until it starts working."

Anyone in your target market knows what a pain in the ass it is to do ad hoc builds. You don't need to describe the steps. Just change it to "Ad hoc builds suck, here's a way to get the benefits without making one ever again."

Furthermore, the always-popular phrase "the x that is y" (and derivations thereof, like "the headache known as ad hoc distribution") irritates me. It sounds like snobby nerd talk.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good overview by private beta tester: <http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/1037353749/testflight>

I'm not sure this is a product that I would pay for, since it is based on an iOS 4 feature[1] that I have used before.

[1] [http://jeffreysambells.com/posts/2010/06/22/ios-wireless- app...](http://jeffreysambells.com/posts/2010/06/22/ios-wireless-app- distribution/)

</comment><comment><USER4> See also: [http://buzzworks.de/blog/announcing-developer-framework- hock...](http://buzzworks.de/blog/announcing-developer-framework-hockey)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have no idea how this could possibly work, but it sounds incredible. Ad-hoc distribution for beta testing is still really painful.

<comment> matthew-wegner I set up web distribution for ad hoc builds today. I found this: <http://github.com/wbroek/IPA-Distrubution>

Check their example.php -- you still need to manage a provisioning profile with device ids, but from there you just do Build and Archive and put the .ipa and .mobileprovision file alongside the above scripts. Their code extracts application info, including thumbnail, and builds a nice iPhone-formatted HTML interface. Any iOS4 device can visit your URL and install the app (assuming their UDID is in your profile).</comment></comment>


History and design of the PowerPC processor - <AUTHOR> http://dhs.nu/special-ppc.php <comment><USER2> This is the poorest PowerPC history article I've ever seen, and in addition the author displays a great misunderstanding of computer architecture.</comment>


Show HN: A mailing-list miner that posts messages to a subreddit - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kvnn/blackbart <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all,

I've created this to make it easier to digest the Bitcoin-development mailing list. You can see it in action at [http://reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist](http://reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist) . I'd love if people found it useful, and I'd love PR's.

Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER2> What does it support? Any mailing list whatsoever? I don't understand, does it have its own email address? How do I make this email address associated with this thing effectively "join" the mailing list?

</comment><comment><USER2> Some time ago I tried to get some mailing lists on the web by using [http://questo.email/](http://questo.email/), but I had no success.

</comment><comment><USER3> This kinda looks like something that would get you auto- spamfiltered/shadowbanned from reddit if it pulled the 'wrong' message or something didn't get filtered out.</comment>


Zerocoin startup revives the dream of truly anonymous money - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/11/zerocoin-startup-revives-the-dream-of-truly-anonymous-money/ <comment><USER2> I really don't understand why anyone thinks that anonymous money is a good idea. I'm as big a fan of freedom as the next person, but it seems to me that the _primary_ purpose of anonymous money is to do an end-run around the law.

[UPDATE] Let me try to make this a little more precise: I don't understand the appeal of anonymous _digital_ money. Physical cash is very useful, and I would not want it to go away. But even physical cash is not completely anonymous because you have to be physically present to exchange it, which entails a certain amount of risk, and that puts some checks-and-balances on potential abuses. Anonymous _digital_ money does away with those checks-and-balances and makes a lot of activities with questionable societal value like crypto- extortion much more lucrative than they were before. For example, malware that encrypts your hard drive for ransom was unheard of before the advent of Bitcoin.

<comment><USER3> I typically agree with that sentiment..... but then I think about all the information that Amazon has about me: e.g. political and religious views, cosmetic and OTC pharmaceuticals....... I'd really rather I could buy things anonymously online. I'm ok with the _government_ seeing these things with a warrant; I just don't want the stores I'm interacting with to have such a thorough profile.

<comment><USER4> Strange, we have entirely opposite views on this.

One thing Jeff Bezos can't do is trump up "structuring" charges, arrest me, prevent access to decent legal representation by freezing my assets, and then use the threat of decades in prison to extort me into accepting a plea deal of being locked in a cage with violent people for just a few years.

I'd be FAR more accepting of Amazon having full detailed knowledge of my financial life than an entity with the real power to destroy my life on a whim.

<comment><USER5> Also it's easier to switch vendor than it is to switch governments

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This technology already exists today in the form of the Cryptonote based coins - of which Monero is the leading example.

Cryptonote, by default, is an opaque blockchain - your transactions are not visible to the world. But, let's say you're a non-profit organization and you _do_ wish for your donations to be public. Cryptonote allows for that using a "view key".

In this way, you get the best of both worlds - privacy by default, and openness when you need it.

The cryptonote wallets are still in their early stages, but the various coins are available and trading on exchanges today. And you can even use them to pay bitcoin based merchants using a service like ShapeShift or xmr.to .

<comment><USER7> All anonymity is not created equal: you're better off if we can only figure out that one out of 6 billion people bought a Nickelback album, then if we know it was either you or one guy in Tristan da Cunha. The size of you're anonymity set matters and Cryptonote provides a rather small one in comparison to Zerocash. This is not to say Cryptonote is worthless, there are tradeoffs between the two, but Zerocash has a distinct advantage in terms of anonymity and I think it matters.

Cryptonote's ring signatures scale linearly in the number of people your transactions are mixed with. As a result, you can't mix an individual transaction with that many people without it getting too big and too computationally costly(chaining transactions doesn't solve this). In contrast, Zerocash mixes every transaction with every other transaction ever[1].

If you are worried about maintaining privacy given repeated interactions with merchants or others who already have some partial information about you, the size of the anonymity set matters considerably. Longterm intersectional attacks are a major problem with anonymity systems. The smaller the set you mix with on any given transaction, the easier it is for some third party to use outside information to eliminate everyone else in the mixing set (e.g because she knows no one else in the set was online at the time of the transaction or was in your approximate geographic area), and determine the true spender. One of the few effective defenses we have for this is to simply include as many people as possible in the anonymity set. If you want to avoid companies building financial profiles of users from the blockchain, this is precisely the type of attack you need to thwart.

[1] Technically, up to 2^64 transactions and the networks ability to handle the spent serial number list. So there is a limit, but it's rather large.

<comment><USER8> The point you're actually trying to make is "every privacy scheme has trade- offs".

Zerocoin's trade-offs are massive: untested / unreviewed cryptography, a trusted initial accumulator that can ruin the anonymity for everyone forever, a significantly larger transaction size, and a blockchain so opaque that double-spends and false coin creation cannot be seen.

Those are the issues that matter, and Monero suffers from none of those problems.

<comment><USER9> > a trusted initial accumulator that can ruin the anonymity for everyone > forever

This is false: even if somebody compromises the initial setup (which, if implemented using the proposed MPC protocol, would require compromising every single participant; compromising n-1 parties doesn't do anything), the system continues to enjoy the same zero-knowledge guarantees. Compromised setup or not, in Zerocash the anonymity set is all participants of the system.

<comment><USER8> On further consideration I agree with you. Knowledge of the accumulator would merely allow for the arbitrary creation of forged spends that appear valid, but the rest of the system would still remain opaque (much to its detriment in this instance).

Also there is nothing so suggest that a clever MPC will solve the collusion problem. Of course the participants will make claims about their honesty, but if ZeroCoin is worth massive amounts of money the temptation to seek collusion will be there.

Of course, whilst it's true that some participants might stick to their proverbial guns, what is going to prevent a motivated state-level attacker from monitoring as many participants as they can during the computation? Then they only need to compromise the handful that they couldn't monitor, and for that they have rubberhose cryptanalysis.

<comment><USER10> The way you phrase it makes it seem like the parties involved are perpetually at risk of being compromised, as though they must retain and store the secrets necessary for parameter generation forever. When in fact it will be done once, and well in advance of any significant value in the currency which would incentivize crazy government yatta yatta.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how it will stack up against Bitcoin. Zero-knowledge proofs (zk- SNARKs) should eliminate the need to store gigabytes of data on everyone's computer that wishes to participate in the network, which is a win in and of itself.

</comment><comment><USER12> Sending money is a PITA because there's so much risk, because there's so much incentive if you can game the system.

That said, I'm not sure how they will ever be able to scale their product and comply with all the reporting requirements of the feds. Traditionally, the primary users of anonymous money transfer systems have been those trying to evade either the law man or the law (or both).

</comment><comment><USER13> Relevant thread about Coinjoin, with a section comparing it to Zerocoin (I am not sure how up-to-date the thread is, since it is from 2013):

[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0)</comment>


PSA: The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Is Faster Than It Used to Be - <AUTHOR> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267915-psa-the-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-is-faster-than-it-used-to-be <comment><USER2> That's why I love the "new" AMD.</comment>


Polish Photographer Knocked on 20000 Doors to Find Out How Fellow Citizens Lived - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2016/01/06/zofia_rydet_s_sociological_record_is_an_exhaustive_look_at_how_polish_people.html <comment><AUTHOR> All photos are available here: [http://www.zofiarydet.com/en/library](http://www.zofiarydet.com/en/library)?</comment>